Return of the city-state

There are many things wrong with this article.

Foremost is its portrayal of power.

Power, which he implicitly defines as the force backing a nation's border, is not premised solely upon the sweat of our technological brows, the way we disrupt and revolutionize economies in pursuit of sky-high GDP.

Power also flows from the barrel of a gun.

The most populous city-state in the world, Hong Kong, has been swallowed by the People's Republic of China. Why? Because China's planned women's army by itself exceeds the population of the United States. Because Deng Xiaoping told the British their troops would cross the bridge with or without a handover.

Contrary to the tone of this article, China is vigorously contesting territory in its sphere of influence. Go look at the sand they're pouring into the south China sea: does that look like dithering?

And even if China, Russia, India, etc. decline within fifty years, that doesn't mean city-states will fill the vaccuum.

It means the remaining players, the ones that have kept their cities and their country together, will have the power. And they will eat these new nimble players alive.

There's a reason the majority of our armed forces hail from the south and midwest and not from the north and west. [1]

Finally, to address the unsaid assumption behind this article: the decline of nations, if it happens, will not be a tea party. The last time a worldwide economic crisis engulfed our planet and threatened the very concept of a nation state, we had the bloodiest war in human history.

[1] As a bit of trivia, when the U.S. government commissioned a study concerning the long-term consequences of full-blown nuclear war, they predicted Latin American gunboats would be pillaging our coasts within 3-4 months. Fun.

> National governments debate and mostly dither. Cities act, cities do.

This is very similar to a sentiment that was shared by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel[0]. He made a case for running for mayor of a, albeit third largest city in the country, Midwestern city after being Chief of Staff in the Obama administration based on his feelings that meaningful change can no longer being effected on a federal level -- that cities are the correct place to start pulling levers and pushing buttons.

Are things that screwed up at the federal level, or is it just because we have largely become complacent at best and apathetic at worst? Or is it that politicians see an easier track to entrenched power on a local level?

[0]: https://www.marketplace.org/2017/05/09/economy/make-me-smart...

Edit: after re-reading what I wrote, damn those options are cynical and depressing.

I made this exact argument to a friend a few days ago when I was visiting Portland. Following an observation about the fact that the mostly rural far right would have to pry the city out of the cold dead hands of its inhabitants, I was struck by the fact that cities are poised to become massively more powerful as globalization accelerates.

Any major port city (assuming it isn't under water) is going to look to its nearest inland neighbors and its other major trade partners, deem the federal government to be full of shit, and build the infrastructure needed to move goods between the two -- because they will have the capital to invest to do it. More importantly they have the data and the political flexibility to negotiate with other 'city states'. If you are going to live in the middle of nowhere, it is going to start costing much more, and I can imagine a future where if you aren't a tax paying citizen of cities that have banded together to fund infrastructure development, you will be paying a steep fee to make use of it.

The solution to the US's infrastructure woes is in the hands of cities, and I suspect that if they choose to act, the country is going to look very different in 30 or 40 years. Add to this the fact that the federal govt is no longer tampering with normal settlement patterns by subsidizing suburban living, and the rich and powerful are going to congregate in cities. Sure they may own a second house in the middle of nowhere, but the vast majority of their productivity will be created while in the city.

I also suspect that cities that do not invest in social infrastructure (e.g. housing, and zoning regs) will ultimately fall behind, network effects aside. An anecdote I heard was that Portland rents have been rising at nearly 20% per year, and many people simply cannot find a place to stay, and wind up on the street (SV exporting their finest social features?). But Portland is building housing all over the place so I think it has a chance. Cities that cannot figure out how to maximize their productivity by providing good social infrastructure will become the new backwaters.

Another great article on this is [0].

0. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/opinion/sunday/a-new-map-...

City-states will not get us off the planet in any significant way; nation-states are struggling to as it is. As far as I'm concerned, any step away from world government is retrograde. I no longer believe I'll see it in my lifetime though.

This does seem to be where the US government is heading: Conservatives are doing everything they can to destroy federal power so they can create communities around traditional values (or just exploit deregulation to socialize the costs of getting rich), which leaves local governments to step into the void. When you take the idea much further, there are a lot of troubling implications:

Who has power in the areas between the cities? What rights do urbanites have outside their city and who upholds those rights? How do we avoid rural areas devolving into economic wastelands or being exploited by monied interests in the cities? What criminal code could we agree on on a large scale and who enforces it? How can a rural community control access to abortion (for example), when such a service is a short drive away? Would the difference in wealth and opportunity just create a permanent rural underclass without redistributive social policies to offset it? How would a city state respond to something like wage slavery on its doorstep? Who pays for and protects federal lands, parks, and the commons? Who feeds the city? How do cities defend themselves?

<And climate change, internet governance and international crime all seemed beyond the nation-state’s abilities.>

This has more to do with powerful lobby groups and corporations controlling politicians.

Politicians should be doing the peoples bidding but they are more about furthering their own, not to mention banks like Goldman Sachs inserting people in positions of power.

eg http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/goldman-sachs-power-wh...

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q42012/list-of-goldman...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-feat...

I see the future or perhaps the far future less as large groups of nation states but rather as a decentralized world power/government (UN with actual power) with centralized city-states simply due to increased globalization (even if some are rejecting it as currently right now, its not like people can reverse globalization) meaning less importance of national powers, increased diversity/multi-ethnic populations/cultures gathering around large urban cities such as seen in Singapore and increased importance of global hubs being cities where the cities bring talent together instead of the countries themselves such as New York for Finance, Silicon Valley, etc. and also the massive powers of transnational corporate companies who hold sway due to their abilities to employ people, influence economies and make technological and societal change.

Moreover, its not like you can really stop cities from gaining power, urbanization used to be and still is a symbol of development for most countries so its not like nation-states are against the idea of large cities. Nation-states aren't actively trying to decrease the size of cities and push people out of it simply because they would become too powerful. As well, nation-states will seek to only make certain cities powerful to be strategic instead of trying to make every city or location in the nation powerful which in turn brings to power powerful city-states.

Its also stated that military occupation is a powerful deterrent for city-states taking over nation-states. I argue that simply starting a war decreases the importance of a city-state and you reach the stage where you scare away the talent and economical activity that gave meaning to the importance of a city-state simply by starting a war. There is not much economical and development going on when you are fighting or even threatening a war which would mean that you can not really take over a city-state without destroying it or basically have to pour money in to just resuscitate it, like in Syria or places in Middle East that are constantly threatened.

The recent NYT article "The Urban Revival Is Over" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15168420) seems to contradict at least some of the ideas in this article.

There's a key flaw in the idea of resurgent city states and that is the fact that to coordinate production you have to secure the infrastructure which is between the cities. Imagine all the complex relationships that goes into making an iPhone. Mines, oil wells, farms, factories, and so forth are all over the planet and not in just one place. Cities thrive because of those complex relationships being relatively secure. And without that security they falter.

If you want to declare something to be independent from a nation-state and its laws, you need one of the following conditions to be true:

1) you are small enough or insignificant enough that nation states are not interesting in showing you your place,

2) you are powerful enough so nation states will not mess with you, as the cost will be too much for them.

Point 1 is always temporary. Point 2 is more interesting — for now, there are no private powers that could stand the military assault of nation states, especially larger ones. But such power does exist, and we are periodically reminded about it in recent news reports.

City states or coalitions of city-states? I doubt a single city could defend itself against nuclear powers.

The case of Liberland raises another possibility: virtual nations based on affiliation rather than physical location.

Try to see, a city as a brain, with the people beeing neurons, containing potential ideas.

For a city the most interesting thing to happen, is new connections between the people, in two forms. Personal Connection (very important to realize allready existing new ideas) and contact of a person with new things/ideas.

A city could further the interpersonal conntact, by creating partys, festivals or a sort of (non-relationship) speed-dating.

But how can a city further the contact of persons with new ideas? What if the person in need of new ideas, heavily resists having contact with them?

I've come to similar conclusions but not for the exact same reasons.

In my state (and it seems, most others), the cities are progressive and forward-thinking (renewable energy, climate change is not a hoax, equality, education is good, universities are generally good etc) and the rural areas are essentially the opposite, and the divide is growing under Trump. Anything progressives are for the rural areas are against almost by default.

The main thing holding cities from progressing further is that the state is so gerrymandered (or has been, they redrew the maps but will likely be similarly bad just in different ways) that the rural (conservatives) control the state government almost entirely. As a result, cities abilities to govern themselves has been reduced.

I'm not happy with the way things are going but its also difficult to see them changing. Those in progressive areas vote for more education funding, more access to higher education, better access to healthcare - all things that benefit rural areas as much or more than populated areas (cities generally having better paid, better educated and therefore more healthy people). Where I grew up (in an extremely rural area), diabetes, obesity, heart disease etc are extremely common and access to quality healthcare is lower. What needs to happen is some kind of reconciliation or at least a recognition that we have essentially matching values despite what those who would like to keep us divided might say.

The fact that wearing my NPR shirt is seen as basically the same thing in conservative areas as an Infowars shirt would be seen in liberal areas makes me question how likely any of that is.